Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ward, 118 P.3d 1122.
- State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
State v. Evans
506 P.3d 819
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 475 (“The substantive basis for New Jersey’s enhancement is thus not at issue; the adequacy of New Jersey’s procedure is.”); Towery, 204 Ariz. at 390, ¶ 12; ¶ 10 (App. 2005) (Blakely is not retroactive and applies only to “convictions not yet final on direct review the day Blakely was decided.”).
- E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
-
E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state
468 P.3d 1209
Ariz. 2020
¶¶ 9–11 (App. 2005); Ariz. R. Crim.
- State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
State v. Collins
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We therefore do not need to address whether prejudice resulted, but note that Collins’ counsel cross-examined witnesses and advocated on his behalf during the aggravation phase at trial and at sentencing, and further note that Collins has failed to show how his 1 Collins cites Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 313-14 (2004), ¶ 13 (App. 2005), to support his claim the court’s colloquy was inadequate and that he did not waive his presence for the aggravation phase.
- State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Bivens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Bivens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Sajna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Sajna
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
This court “cannot presume a waiver” of such rights “from a silent record.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 (1969) (superseded on other grounds); ¶ 13, (citing Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243).
- State v. Montgomery 312 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
State v. Montgomery
312 P.3d 140
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-62, ¶ 9 , -26 (App.2005).
- State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
State v. Baker
170 P.3d 727
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 13 , (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 , 89 S.Ct.
- State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
thdrawn plea offer, violating due process rights and Distribution of Powers Clause of Arizona Constitution, did “not implicate constitutional rights of sufficient magnitude that they require a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver before preclusion applies”; constitutional rights allegedly implicated not personal and need not be “personally and expressly waived”); -27 (App. 2005) (“Although some constitutional rights may be waived without actual knowledge of the right involved, the right to
- State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
State v. Le Noble
164 P.3d 686
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
P. 18.1(b)(1) (emphasis added); -63, ¶ 13 , -27 (App.2005) (“Although some constitutional rights may be waived without actual knowledge of the right involved, the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right and may not be waived without the defendant’s knowledge, and absent a voluntary and intelligent waiver.” (Footnote omitt